The court emphasized the importance of considering the petitioner's explanation and granted the petitioner the opportunity to present additional statements and documents for reconsideration by the District Collector.

1. The petitioner Society, represented by its Honorary Secretary has filed the present writ petition, seeking to challenge an order of the second respondent District Collector dated 08.12.2010.

2. When the matter came up on 13.12.2010, this Court granted an interim stay after recording the submissions made by Mr.G.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.S.Thiruvenkataswamy. On the same day, the learned Advocate General made certain submissions which was recorded by this Court. In paragraph 2 of the order, it was observed as follows:-

"2. The learned Advocate General, for the learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents, had categorically admitted that though the reply, dated 29.10.2010, was received by the second respondent, on 1.11.2010, from the petitioner Society, it had not been considered before issuing the impugned proceedings, dated 8.12.2010. Therefore, the writ petition may be allowed on that ground alone. He had further submitted that the second respondent reserves the right to consider the reply submitted by the petitioner Society, on 29.10.2010, and to pass fresh orders thereon. However, in view of the submissions made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that there are certain other issues, which are to be gone into, including the allegations of mala fide and colourable exercise of power by the respondents, this Court finds it appropriate to list the writ petition, on 4.1.2011, for final hearing. The respondents are to file the counter affidavits by then. Interim stay is granted till 4.1.2011."

Notwithstanding the concession made by the respondent State, the matter was adjourned from time to time and the interim order came to extended on piecemeal basis.

4. Aggrieved by the continuation of the interim order, the respondent State has filed a vacate stay application in M.P.No.1 of 2011 together with supporting counter affidavit dated 31.12.2010. In defending the action of the second respondent, the first respondent contended that the permissive occupation given to the petitioner Society will not create any right or title over the Government land. Therefore, the petitioner Society have no audience before this Court.

5. On behalf of the second respondent, a counter affidavit dated 31.12.2010 was also filed. In paragraph 13 of the counter, it was stated that the petitioner by a notice dated 29.09.2010 was requested to produce documentary evidence to establish their ownership on the said land in support of their claim within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The said notice was received by the petitioner on 01.10.2010. The petitioner by a reply dated 13.10.2010 informed the second respondent that their Legal Advisor had sought for further time to give reply to the notice issued by the District Collector. A further notice dated 25.10.2010 was issued to the petitioner. After receiving the notice, a further reply was sent questioning the jurisdiction of the District Collector stating that the District Collector cannot arrogate herself to the position of a Civil Court asking the petitioner to produce any documents. Since the Collector herself is a party to the dispute, she cannot become a Judge of her own cause. Notwithstanding the stand taken by the petitioner, the respondents have passed the impugned order dated 08.12.2010.

6. Mr.G.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel contended that the question of jurisdiction of the District Collector must be gone into. However, it was admitted by the learned Advocate General that the impugned order inasmuch as it had not considered the petitioner's objection and since the petitioner did not have an opportunity, they are willing to redo the exercise and agreeing to withdraw the impugned order. The petitioner's explanation, if any will be considered by the second respondent District Collector in accordance with law. After hearing arguments by both sides for some time, this Court informed that the petitioner Soci